1 / 75

Twinningový Projekt FINANČNÍ NÁSTROJE pro implementaci acquis v oblasti životního prostředí

Twinningový Projekt FINANČNÍ NÁSTROJE pro implementaci acquis v oblasti životního prostředí. Regional Seminar Waste Jihlava 4 th October 2004 Praha 5 th October 2004 Walter HAUER Tim YOUNG. Content. EC Landfilling Directive

sarila
Download Presentation

Twinningový Projekt FINANČNÍ NÁSTROJE pro implementaci acquis v oblasti životního prostředí

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TwinningovýProjekt FINANČNÍ NÁSTROJE pro implementaci acquis v oblasti životního prostředí Regional Seminar Waste Jihlava 4th October 2004 Praha 5th October 2004 Walter HAUER Tim YOUNG

  2. Content • EC Landfilling Directive • Waste quantities, currently and prognosis, examples, contribution of separate collection • Capacities needed for stabilisation of residual MSW and investments needed in the CR • Basic Technologies for the stabilisation of residual MSW • Creating and Assessing Waste-Management-Options, Cost accounting • OP-Infra and Cohesion Fund • Manual and CD

  3. The System Landfill

  4. Sanitary Landfill:The Multi-Barrier-System prescriptive described Technical Standard objective based targets Safeguard 1:Site selection (hydrogeology) Safeguard 2:Top sealing (capping) Safeguard 3:Leachate control (mineral liner, mineral + HDPE liner) Safeguard 4:Leachate collection and treatment Safeguard 5: Reduction of landfilling biodegradable waste About the European approach...

  5. Targets given by EC Landfill Directive Quantity of landfilled biodegradable MSW in relation to the year 1995 Four years extension period for member states landfilled more than 80% of MSW in the year 1995 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 2020 1995 2006 2009 2010 2013 Year

  6. Waste Management Targets MSW TKO Treatment for disposal„stabilisation“ 50% Separate Collection for: Recycling Composting Recovering 50% required by the Waste Management Plan of the CR required by the EC Landfill Directive 20-30% 100% Landfilling

  7. Content • EC Landfilling Directive • Waste quantities, currently and prognosis, examples, contribution of separate collection • Capacities needed for stabilisation of residual MSW and investments nedded in the CR • Basic Technologies for the stabilisation of residual MSW • Creating and Assessing Waste-Management-Options, Cost accounting • OP-Infra and Cohesion Fund • Manual and CD

  8. Example for the development of MSW-quantities - Federal State of Bavaria 103 164 161 162 161 122 152 156 138 50 recycled MSW 25 19 5 23 13 22 energy recovery of MSW 74 94 114 biological recovered MSW 115 124 130 138 130 kg MSW per inh.yr 600 500 400 300 residual MSW 200 359 285 253 223 214 207 203 100 195 190 0 1991 1993 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

  9. Example for the development of MSW-quantities - City of Innsbruck 59 57 47 51 46 45 45 38 220 226 Biowaste 216 226 219 168 49 204 57 68 87 141 37 113 190 Recyclables 172 34 Target Environmental Plan: 180 kg 600 500 400 300 kg / inh., yr Residual + Bulky Waste 200 305 307 299 293 294 283 267 264 262 254 250 248 243 233 226 228 224 100 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2003 1992 2002 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 2001

  10. Example for forecast-scenarios of Waste-quantities - City of Vienna WORST CASE (PESSIMISTIC) yearly growing rate of Waste quantity: 3,48% TREND (PLAUSIBLE DEVELOP.) yearly growing rate 1,77% (until 2010 in total 19%) yearly growing rate 0,56% optimistic waste avoidance optimistic recycling yearly growing rate 1,32% realistic waste avoidance realistic recycling 1.000 tons per year 2.300 2.200 2.100 2.000 1.900 1.800 1.700 1.600 1.500 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year

  11. Development of MSW-Quantitiesin Austria 1.000 t/at/rok Other Recycleables kg/inh.a 3.500 Packagings (Plastics, Metals) 400 3.000 350 Biowaste 2.500 300 Glass 2.000 250 Paper 200 1.500 Bulky waste 1.000 Residual MSW 100 500 Waste from households total 0 1984 1996 1998 1986 1992 1988 1990 2000 1972 Waste diposed 1994 1980 1978 Year

  12. Waste Management Targets MSW TKO Treatment for disposal 50% Separate Collection for: Recycling Composting Recovering 50% required by the Waste Management Plan of the CR required by the EC Landfill Directive 20-30% 100% Landfilling

  13. Quantity and composition of residual MSW in Austria, 1991 and 1998 Separate collection of Paper/Cardboard and Biowaste can deliver the highest contribution to the reduction of residual MSW-quantity 1.000 t/yr 2.250 255 kg/inh.a Biowaste 2.000 biodegradable Paper 1.750 Other waste 160 kg/inh.a 1.500 140 kg/inh.a Textiles 1.250 Hazardous waste 54 kg/inh.a 1.000 Metals 750 Other plastics 500 Plastic and compound packagings 250 0 Glass packagings 1991 1998

  14. The effect of separate collection of biodegradable MSW - Example separate collection and recycling of 50% of all biodegradables minimum treatment of residual MSW no separate collection and recycling minimum treatment of residual MSW Task landfilled biodegradables are to be reduced by 65% to 35% biodegrad- able 33% 52,5 kg/inh.yr biodegrad- able 52.5 kg/inh.yr biodegrad- able 50% 157,5 kg/inh.yr residual MSW for further landfilling 105 kg/inh.yr landfilling not bio- degradable 50% not bio- degradable 67% biodegrad- able 50% biodegrad- able 50% separate collection 75 kg/inh.yr 195 kg/inh.yr stabilisation not bio- degradable 50% residualMSW to bestabilised biodegr 22,5 kg 67,5 kg/inh.yr not bio- degradable67% 300 kg/inh.yr 300 kg/inh.yr MSW biodegrad- able 50% 150 kg/inh.yr not biodegrad- able 50% 150 kg/inh.yr 300 kg/inh.yr

  15. Economic advantage of separate collection of biodegradable MSW • Separate collection and recycling of biodegradable MSW (Paper, cardboard, biowaste) saves money even the separate collection has higher specific costs than MSW disposal • in the example before separate collection can cost 2.500 Kc/t while MSW disposal costs Kc/t 2.000; landfilling calculated with Kc/t 1.300

  16. Exemplary cost comparison of alternatives (for 2020) Competition Grant 70%of investment Earnings from selling €/t Operational costs 40 Investment costs 20 0 -20 Separate collection of biodegradable MSW, Splitting of residual MSW and landfilling of not biodegradable parts of MSW is advantagous -40 Landfill Separate collection and recycling (paper) Incineration MBTh

  17. Possible FutureMožná budoucnost Hazardous wasteProblemové látky ? TextilesTextilie WoodDřevo Plastic packagingsplastové obaly GlassSklo MetalsKovy PaperPapír Biogenics Biologický odpad Bulky Waste Neskladný odpad MSW Domovní odpad MSW and Bulky Waste Domovní a neskladný odpad 200? kg/inh.akg/obyv. rok 500 400 300 200 100 0 2001 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2000 Gänserndorf Moravskoslezský kraj

  18. Prognosis for the CR optimistic scenario minus 3%/a until 2013 Quantity [1.000 t/a] calculated average growing rates: MSW: + 0,8% per year separate collected MSW: + 4,1% per year residual MSW:constant with 287 kg/inh.yr 4.500 4.000 3.500 3.000 other waste collected separately 2.500 hazardous waste wood 2.000 textiles metals 1.500 plastics glass 1.000 paper biowaste 500 residual MSW 0 2020 2019 2007 2001 2003 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2002 2004

  19. Waste Management Targets MSW TKO Treatment for disposal 50% Separate Collection for: Recycling Composting Recovering 50% required by the Waste Management Plan of the CR required by the EC Landfill Directive 20-30% 100% Landfilling

  20. Content • EC Landfilling Directive • Waste quantities, currently and prognosis, examples, contribution of separate collection • Capacities needed for stabilisation of residual MSW and investments nedded in the CR • Basic Technologies for the stabilisation of residual MSW • Creating and Assessing Waste-Management-Options, Cost accounting • OP-Infra and Cohesion Fund • Manual and CD

  21. Targets of EC Landfill Directive and Situation in the CR BRKO target BRKO total 1.770.000 t/a BRKO remaining for disposal considering existing incinerators 1.622.500 t/a 1.530.000 t/a 1.380.000 t/a 1.327.500 t/a BRKO remaining for disposal considering existing incinerators without rising share 1.265.000 t/a 1.147.500 t/a 2 1 1.035.000 t/a 3 765.000 t/a optim. scenario minus 3%/a residual MSWuntil 2013 BRKO to be stabilised considering raising shares of biodegradables 535.500 t/a BRKO to be stabilised considering stable shares of biodegradables 1.000 tons per year of BRKO 2.000 1.800 1.600 1.400 1.200 1.000 800 600 400 200 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2010 2019 2020 2007 2008 2009 2004 2005 2006 year

  22. Capacities for stabilising residual MSW needed in the CR ~2.050.000 t/a ~1.750.000 t/a Residual MSW treatment capacities needed considering constant BRKO share ~1.550.000 t/a 1.250.000 t/a 3 Residual MSW treatment capacities needed considering rising shares of BRKO (following metodika BRKO) 2 1 650.000 t/a Minimum additional capacities needed for residual MSW treatment existing incineration capacities 1.000 tons per year BRKO target 2.000 1.800 1.600 1.400 1.200 1.000 800 600 400 200 0 2011 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2012 2019 2010 2020 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 year

  23. Capacities for stabilising residual MSW needed in the CR - optimistic scenario 1.000 tons per year BRKO target 2.000 1.800 Residual MSW treatment capacities needed considering constant BRKO share 1.600 1.400 1.200 ~950.000 t/a 1.000 3 800 650.000 t/a 600 Minimum additional capacities needed for residual MSW treatment 400 existing incineration capacities 200 0 2011 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2012 2019 2010 2020 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 year

  24. Capacities for stabilising residual MSW needed in the CR • From 2013 at least 600.000 t/yr, following the metodika BRKO with rising shares of biodegradable residual MSW 900.000 t/yr • From 2020 capacities of at least 1.100.000 t/yr are needed in addition to current existing capacities • Considering the optimistic scenario the existing capacity would be enough until 2019 and from 2020 additional capacities of about 300.000 t/yr would be needed

  25. Investments needed Investment in Billion Kc 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year • To install the additional capacities investments in a range of Kc 7.8 billion to Kc 11.4 billion respectively Kc 11.8 - 17.3 billion have to be estimated needed until the year 2012. The range of the investment is dependent from the chosen technology. • Until the year 2020 the investments needed are to be estimated with a range of Kc 14 billion to Kc 21 billion. • In case of the optimistic scenarioinvestments of Kc 4 billion to 6 billion until 2020 are sufficiant • The calculation uses the following input data:- specific investment costs for mass burn incinerator facilities: Kc/t 13,000 - 19,000- specific investment costs for mechanical biological treatment plants: Kc/t 4,500 - 7,500

  26. Content • EC Landfilling Directive • Waste quantities, currently and prognosis, examples, contribution of separate collection • Capacities needed for stabilisation of residual MSW and investments nedded in the CR • Basic Technologies for the stabilisation of residual MSW • Creating and Assessing Waste-Management-Options, Cost accounting • OP-Infra and Cohesion Fund • Manual and CD

  27. Basic technical alternatives for residual waste treatment prior to landfill Mechanical / Biological / Thermal Treatment Thermal Treatment Residual Waste Residual Waste (Mechanical Treatment) Mechanical Treatment Light Fraction Heavy Fraction Biological „Inerting“ Thermal Treatment Thermal Treatment Landfill Landfill (+ some utilization for landscaping etc.) Landfill

  28. Mechanical-Biological-Thermal Treatment Possibility for adding bulky waste Possibility for adding sewage sludge Residual MSW 100% Shredding Sievingmagn. Sep. Heavy fraction 47% Light fraction 50% Metals 3% rottinglosses 25% Incineration Biologicdegradation Recycling Landfill 0,47*0,75=35%

  29. Conventional MSW Incineration Plant Delivery Grid Energy recovery Bunker Vessel Flue Gas Cleaning Unit

  30. Technologies for Stabilisation of residual MSW used in Austria

  31. Technologies for Stabilisation of residual MSW used in Austria Federal “Land” Kraj Capital Population (millions) MSW management in 2004 Vienna 1,70 Classical incineration, partially production of RDF Lower Austria St. Pölten 1,40 Mainly classical incineration Burgenland Eisenstadt 0,25 Mechanical Biological Thermal Styria Graz 1,10 Mechanical Biological Thermal Carinthia Klagenfurt 0,45 classical incineration Salzburg Salzburg 0,70 Mechanical Biological Thermal Tyrol Innsbruck 0,65 ? Mechanical Biological Thermal Vorarlberg Bregenz 0,40 ? Export Upper Austria Linz 1,35 Classical incineration and MBT 8,0 45-50 % Incin., 40-45 % MBT, 10 % Export / not yet decided

  32. Technical StandardsBest Available Technique BAT • Incineration: Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration • MBT-plantsBest Available Techniques for the Waste Treatment Industries • Definition of the term “stabilised” is needed Details see CD

  33. Content • EC Landfilling Directive • Waste quantities, currently and prognosis, examples, contribution of separate collection • Capacities needed for stabilisation of residual MSW and investments nedded in the CR • Basic Technologies for the stabilisation of residual MSW • Creating and Assessing Waste-Management-Options, Cost accounting • OP-Infra and Cohesion Fund • Manual and CD

  34. Planning Process Political decision Strategic environmental assessment Regional targets Vision values Legislative basis NWMP Infrastructural basis Current WM-figures Renewing existing plants new plants organisational structure Time schedule finance planning PR Activities needed Regional WMP Waste amount / composition forecast Regional and Legal Frame

  35. Creating Options Not compliant In compliance with landfill directive No need for MSW, but e.g. for sludge 2. 3. 4. 1.

  36. Calculation Principles • All options are concerning the same system boundaries • As few treatment as needed to meet EC-Landfilling-Directive requirements and Landfilling as much as possible • Regional BRKO-target is calculated according to calculation method of MoE • Share of BRKO increases in the future according to calculation method of MoE • Treatment of sewage sludge is not included in the capacities needed

  37. System Boundaries • Inside the system boundaries (effects considered) • Transport of waste from transfer stations to the facility (if any) • Utilization of energy as heat and/or electricity at the planned facility • Disposal / recovery of all output materials • Employment in direct connection with the planned facility • Effects of accidents within the facility - possibly for the risk assessment • Outside the system boundaries (effects not considered) • Waste collection and transport direct to the facility or to transfer stations • Collection and treatment of other wastes than residual MSW • Distribution of energy (heat and/or electricity) • Production of by-products and operation materials • Environmental effects of the construction phase

  38. Current Situation MSW Residual MSW156.000 t/a Recycling Recovery Landfilling 156.000 t/a Should be increased up to 50% until 2010

  39. Option 1 Classical Incineration MSW Residual MSW156.000 t/a Recycling Recovery Landfilling ConventionalIncineration

  40. Option 1 Classical Incineration Incineration MSW Landfilling without other treatment Capacity needed for HK [t/a] 160.000 140.000 120.000 100.000 80.000 60.000 40.000 20.000 0 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year

  41. Option 1 - Classical IncinerationRegions of Hradec Králové and Pardubice Catchment areas for landfilling MSW- Incineration Plant

  42. Option 2a – MBT with Priority on Incineration of Light Fraction MSW Residual MSW156.000 Recycling Recovery Mechanical Pretreatment HeavyFraction Light Fraction Landfilling Biologicaltreatment Incineration

  43. Option 2a – MBT with Priority on Incineration of Light Fraction Incineration MSW Landfilling without other treatment Capacity needed for HK [t/a] Biological treatment 160.000 140.000 120.000 100.000 80.000 60.000 40.000 20.000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year

  44. Option 2b – MBT with Priority on Biological Treatment of Heavy Fraction MSW Residual MSW156.000 t/a Recycling Recovery MechanicalPretreatment Light Fraction HeavyFraction Landfilling Inciner-ation Biologicaltreatment

  45. Option 2b – MBT with Priority on Biological Treatment of Heavy Fraction Incineration RDF Landfilling without other treatment Capacity needed for HK [t/a] Biological treatment 160.000 140.000 120.000 100.000 80.000 60.000 40.000 20.000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year

  46. Option 2c – MBT with balanced treatment of Light and Heavy Fraction MSW Residual MSW Recycling Recovery Mechanical PretreatmentMinimum quantity needed 50%Light Fraction 47% HeavyFraction LandfillingMaximumquantitiypossible Inciner-ation100% Biologicaltreatment100%

  47. Option 2c – MBT with balanced treatment of Light and Heavy Fraction Incineration RDF Landfilling without other treatment Capacity needed for HK [t/a] Biological treatment 160.000 140.000 120.000 100.000 80.000 60.000 40.000 20.000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year

  48. Option 2c - MBThRegions of Hradec Králové and Pardubice Catchment area for landfilling Mechanical treatment Plant Biological treatment PlantLandfill Incineration Plant light fraction

More Related